ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Cooperation, if that is what Europe wants, is a two way street. The Europeans have to junk their Bush bashing and fashionable hatred of America.

Why?

How does Bush-bashing affect transatlantic relations? An alliance is supposed to be deep enough to withstand the ephemeral heads of State. Bush-bashing in the public opinion, as well as Chirac bashing in the American public opinion, is definitely no reason for diplomats not to work efficiently.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I was filing it under flights of fancy while I hit the submit button, but... the possibility exists that they will become unwilling to send troops outside of the hemisphere for any reason at all. If that happens there is then a large vacuum. Someone will fill that vacuum. Will they be better or worse than the Yanks?

America wouldn't WANT to do that. That would mean giving up what is essentially our hegemony forever. If someone fills that void, it would suck more for us in the long run.

[Arrian]

Pekka, Spiff,

You guys aren't actually trying to have a serious discussion with Ned are you?

Or are you actually that bored?

-Arrian

[Duvan]

Are you saying Ned is.......unreasonable

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Pekka
ErikM, No. Europe is already powerful. Together with US we have a situation where we call the shots. And even with some disagreements on policies, hey that's the way it is now.

THe thing is, if we stop doing that there will be an opening to new power players, like China.

Europe is powerful? Economically, maybe, although
(i) not as powerful as the US
(ii) much of Europe's economic wellbeing depends on the US as the biggest customer.

Politically, the war in Iraq illustrated rather nicely just how much US administration is concerned with the European opinion.

Open any American newspaper from New York Times to Rednecksburg Daily News and you will find the phrase "US is the only superpower in the modern world" mentioned at least three times.

Well, it's true.

And it's not really a good news.

Last US elections have shown that US voters are not immune to electing, how should I put it politely, less then stellar person, as the President.

Next time, it might be worse.

So the current Euro-US divide is not really about terrorism. It's bigger than that. It is just that US needs a counterweight.

US posters feel upset at US-Euro tensions because they are sure that US motives are pure and benevolent and will always remain such. Unfortunately, all dictators are confident that they are benevolent.

That's all there is to it.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
"Manifest destiny" was the justification for the westward expansion, Oncle Boris... I think we gave it up already

I'm not sure if you're being serious here...

ahhhhhhhh biting...

First the journalist says in his paper Americans feel like they have a 'mission'. Then, we hear your president saying that free trade will bring democracy everywhere... and then we see a bunch of Texan cow-boys running into Iraq with some kind of 'duty' and a lame-ass constitution built without much thought towards Iraqi traditions. Now, WTF is a 'mission'? Did they get it from a burning bush?

Free trade is America's new 'manifest destiny', and it's being sold as such to the public.

[Kuciwalker]

The difference is, the US isn't run by a dictator (well, Ashcroft doesn't "run" the US per se... ) - America simply has no real motivation to go to "war for oil" or anything like that. Liberal democracies don't declare war on each other.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I'm not sure if you're being serious here...

ahhhhhhhh biting...

First the journalist says in his paper Americans feel like they have a 'mission'. Then, we hear your president saying that free trade will bring democracy everywhere... and then we see a bunch of Texan cow-boys running into Iraq with some kind of 'duty' and a lame-ass constitution built without much thought towards Iraqi traditions. Now, WTF is a 'mission'? Did they get it from a burning bush?

Free trade is America's new 'manifest destiny', and it's being sold as such to the public.

Well now that you've spelled out that you think free trade = manifest destiny, one can understand what you meant.

Just using the term "Manifest Destiny" without explanation, however, will lead an American who knows his history to think of its historical use: the justification for westward expansion.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I'm not sure if you're being serious here...

ahhhhhhhh biting...

First the journalist says in his paper Americans feel like they have a 'mission'. Then, we hear your president saying that free trade will bring democracy everywhere... and then we see a bunch of Texan cow-boys running into Iraq with some kind of 'duty' and a lame-ass constitution built without much thought towards Iraqi traditions. Now, WTF is a 'mission'? Did they get it from a burning bush?

Free trade is America's new 'manifest destiny', and it's being sold as such to the public.

But they don't call it "manifest destiny"

Plus, someone has to police the world. Why not let the group with the means do so?

btw, I'm not supporting the way the admin has handled diplomacy - I think we should be a LOT less provocative. However, I still think that if we think something is the right thing to do, we should try the nice approach and see if other want to help, but if that doesn't work we should "go it alone". We just shouldn't be so frigging obnoxious about it

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well now that you've spelled out that you think free trade = manifest destiny, one can understand what you meant.

Just using the term "Manifest Destiny" without explanation, however, will lead an American who knows his history to think of its historical use: the justification for westward expansion.

Now that's an interesting comment... Outside America, American history is taught with 'manifest destiny' as some sort of driving force behind American policies, that certainly did not end with westward expansion. Everything up to Caribbean intervention and Philippines is seen as a consequence of it. Everything after is seen mostly as a 'neo-imperialism' (America replacing France and England in directing the third world) that was justified to the public with the old arguments of manifest destiny.

[Kuciwalker]

How is it imperialism?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Now that's an interesting comment... Outside America, American history is taught with 'manifest destiny' as some sort of driving force behind American policies, that certainly did not end with westward expansion. Everything up to Caribbean intervention and Philippines is seen as a consequence of it. Everything after is seen mostly as a 'neo-imperialism' (America replacing France and England in directing the third world) that was justified to the public with the old arguments of manifest destiny.

The actual phrase "manifest destiny" was the justification for westward expansion. Maybe you're talking about just a general sort of nationalism, but that specific slogan has a specific historical meaning.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The actual phrase "manifest destiny" was the justification for westward expansion. Maybe you're talking about just a general sort of nationalism, but that specific slogan has a specific historical meaning.

Wait till I browse through my 10th grade history notes...

ok here it is.

It says that the 'manifest destiny' would eventually require that the British North America becomes American. It also mentions an American president who said that he dreamt of the day when the American flag would float over every square mile of Canada.

[DanS]

he dreamt of the day when the American flag would float over every square mile of Canada

Only that part which is rightly ours.

It says that the 'manifest destiny' would eventually require that the British North America becomes American.

That's a bizarre way to define it.

[Gatekeeper]

You speak from the heart, Pekka and, as my sig indicates, I do appreciate that ...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
Pekka, Spiff,

You guys aren't actually trying to have a serious discussion with Ned are you?

Ned is definitely less stupid than he seems. He has a very strange perception of reality, but his cognitive abilities are normal. It is possible to have a rational argument with him, if he's in the mood of not trolling, and if he accepts to consider others' facts as true.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ned is definitely less stupid than he seems. He has a very strange perception of reality, but his cognitive abilities are normal.

Not that I disagree... but your way of putting it is just insanely funny.

[Oncle Boris]

Oh, I forgot to mention that it was time to change my sig about Tripledoc. Good job Spiffor.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
How is it imperialism?

Basically, the economic interests of Britain got intertwined with those of America. Between 1900 and 1939, America increasingly became an important investing force in British colonies, surpassing Britain itself in some.

When Britain (and France, Netherlands) could not hold their colonies anymore, somehow America had to protect their economic interests (and those of its allies, if Marshall was to work), out of fear that nationalist movements would install communism. This is what I define as neo-imperialism, the large scale trade of weapons and funding of affiliated right-wing military guerillas.

[Pekka]

Gatekeeper, thank you. Like I've said, I don't feel European before. I just can't identify with it. Not because of what is now happening. But in general. I don't know what European is. I don't think there is a thing that is European. There are just bunch of countries, variety, melt pot of cultures, but within own borders. I'm from north, we're not physically connected to the rest of the Europe and I've never felt that way either.

But that doesn't mean I would hate Europe. I just can't identify it, however I do recognize it as the place I was brought up in, and I do feel close to Europe and it's people for example comparing to the East.

But I like the US too. In fact I feel American, even though I'm not. It makes me sounds like a stupid teenage wannabe, but hey, that's the way it goes. So seeing two of the things I feel are me and part of me against each other is like seeing myself being cut in the middle and arguing with each other, like the worst schitzofrenia I could imagine. I'd fight for Europe. I'd fight for the US. I wouldn't fight for no one else. I wouldn't even show up to the rest of them. To see it happening would be seeing myself splitting and I can't choose. And just like in that scenario where US and Europe would rumble, there's no referee who calls it to stop, because the refs are in the ring. And I couldn't find a referee for myself either, I couldn't make a logical decision which way to go.

So it's not only what I think with my common sense, it's what I feel I'm about, so hell yeah it's personal. And I think everyone else should feel the friendship too, because there is one if you just open your eyes and see it.

The closest thing for me would be to say that I'm a Westerner. I'm proud to be one and I'd defend it against aggressors. I like the West, and it can't fall apart. It just can't, not by us. Let it be someone bigger power then, outside force, but not us. I feel the West is the best thing happening in this world, it's the hope of many things and shows the way. West can not split, it must be like it was, is and hopefully will be.

[Ned]

Thanks Spiffor.

And, you can take it to the bank, what I am saying is what many Americans are saying and feeling. There is a huge anti-French and anti-European opinion here mainly because of the fallout from Iraq.

It is one thing to disagree with a course of action. It is another to openly oppose American policy under circumstances where we have declared our vital national interests to be at stake -- even if Europe disagrees that they are.

It is one thing to disagree with policies of an American president. It is another to ridicule him.

We assume that Europe and France are on the side of peace, stability and democracy. We should be working together to make the world a better place for every inhabitant on this planet. But frankly, the European attitude about Saddam Hussein is hardly comprehensible. There is little doubt that had France gotten its way from 1990 on, that Saddam Hussein would have been in power today, not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait and probably in Saudi Arabia and the entire Persian Gulf. Tell me I'm wrong about this. Tell me how this dictatorial madman was a benefit to mankind. Explain to me why eliminating his regime was not good for the world.

[Duvan]

I can´t see anyone disagree about removing Saddam was a bad thing, but what everyone was talking about before the war was if he was a big threat to the rest of the world. Wasen´t that that what US and larger part of EU disagreed on?

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
1. I was most touched by the part where the Italian waiter, Dario Di Tiello, says:

"If you go to the American cemetery in Cassino or the cemetery in nearby Anzio, you can see how many Americans are buried there, how many came to save us from hell. We always forget these things. For me, the American people were a great people, they still are a great people."

That is so weird. I don't think I've ever heard a European state they appreciated the US being involved in WW2. Most of the Europeans on Apolyton always state the the US was just a tag along country in WW2 and didn't really have any affect on the war's outcome.

Its kinda nice to think there's at least one European that doesn't hate the US.

[Oncle Boris]

This whole thing about WW2 is silly. When facing an enemy like the Nazis, you would be hard-pressed to be on the side of the bad guys.

I don't see why America's involvement 60 years ago should dictate how we view post-WW2 foreign policy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This whole thing about WW2 is silly. When facing an enemy like the Nazis, you would be hard-pressed to be on the side of the bad guys.

I don't see why America's involvement 60 years ago should dictate how we view post-WW2 foreign policy.

Believe me, OB, if Nazi Germany today invaded France, there would be no way in hell that Congress would declare war on Germany.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Duvan
I can´t see anyone disagree about removing Saddam was a bad thing, but what everyone was talking about before the war was if he was a big threat to the rest of the world. Wasen´t that that what US and larger part of EU disagreed on?

If Oil means anything to Europe, then Saddam was a threat.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This whole thing about WW2 is silly. When facing an enemy like the Nazis, you would be hard-pressed to be on the side of the bad guys.

The same can be said of the Baath Party and Saddam.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Duvan
I can´t see anyone disagree about removing Saddam was a bad thing, but what everyone was talking about before the war was if he was a big threat to the rest of the world. Wasen´t that that what US and larger part of EU disagreed on?

Well, Duvan, you haven't heard the other shoe drop yet. Dean, the candidate who dropped out and has now endorsed Kerry, has again begin emphasizing that in his opinion neither the world nor the United States is in any way safer without Saddam.

This is just a prelude to a call for unilateral withdrawal by Kerry who had said that if he were president, we never would have removed Saddam. The logical conclusion to all this is that it makes no difference whether the Iraqi's have a democracy or if Saddam's Ba'athist party shoots its way back into power. Since it makes no difference, why spend lives and dollars on a policy that has no consequence to the security of America.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks Spiffor.

You just thanked someone who said you had a 'strange perception of reality'

Believe me, OB, if Nazi Germany today invaded France, there would be no way in hell that Congress would declare war on Germany.

Bullshit!

[ErikM]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Its kinda nice to think there's at least one European that doesn't hate the US.

He's an exception, don't worry